Wi-Fi gets elbow room

By 11.14.2003 :: 11:44AM EDT11.14.2003

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

the fcc announced on thursday that it is expanding the frequency range available for wireless networking. the increase in available frequencies will be the 255 megahertz in the 5.470-5.725ghz range. this is the same range as the wireless standard 802.11a. the increase is being made available to “unlicensed national information infrastructure (u-nii) devices, including radio local area networks (rlans), operating under part 15 of the fcc's rules.”

this increase in the 5ghz range will give the wi-fi industry 80% more spectrum to work with, in a range that is less crowded than the 2.4ghz range used for 802.11b and 802.11g.

the increase will also make the u.s.'s range match more closely with the ranges used in other countries, thus cutting down on the development costs for companies that produce hardware for use internationally. to facilitate this even more, the fcc is requiring that the same standards applied in the ieee's 802.11h standard be applied in both the current 5.250-5.350ghz and the new 5.470-5.725ghz ranges, namely dynamic frequency selection (dfs), a listen-before-talk mechanism, and transmit power control (tpc).

joshua's opinion
this is going to be a good boost for the wi-fi industry. with the exponential increase in hot spots that is currently happening across the country there will be a need for the wider range of bandwidth in the coming years.

an added benefit to an increase in this range of the spectrum is the inclusion of some of the same spectrum as other countries. while this will not have an effect on the vast majority of wi-fi users, it will open up bigger opportunities for the companies that produce the hardware. that might even get some other companies into the field, increasing competition.

it is encouraging to see the fcc taking a proactive role in this area. a government agency that looks out for trends in business and consumer is to be commended.

so, don't look for this new range to be snapped up immediately, but you can rest assured that wi-fi is here to stay.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

user comments 9 comment(s)

802.11h(11:54am est fri nov 14 2003)nice!

company i deal with looking to set up their company compound with 802.11h.– by =)

hmmmm…(12:19pm est fri nov 14 2003)hopefully when this new expansion is available for home users, the routers and access points will allow you to choose what spectrum you want to use. i have an 801.11b wireless network in my house and so i wouldn't have interference, i bought 5.8ghz vtech cordless phones. before i was using 2.4ghz panasonic cordless phones and they interfered greatly no matter what channel i had my router or phones set at. it's good for expansion but there should be a choice as to what frequency is used! – by mich

get outta my 802.11a!(12:52pm est fri nov 14 2003)hey! who said you could use my space! i got 802.11a cause nobody uses 5ghz. now yer all gonna fill it up with yer stupid other junk! quit it!

just use 802.11a and be happy, fools!

do we really need another standard?

yer just gonna have to buy new hardware, regardless, might as well buy stuff that is proven.

802.11a all the way baby!802.11b/g/h is goin down!!!! – by your mom

warning(8:47pm est fri nov 14 2003)is a cat 5e cable such a pain to run? if ran properly, is it not more efficient, faster, and more reliable? why are people so damn lazy?

am i the only one that questions the frequencies that pass through my head all day? have they tested the side effects of this technology on rats yet? if so, how long could they have tested it?

you buy a cell phone, and in the box comes a warning that states they accept no liability of the device's ability to cause cancer and tumors. when my cell phone rings at work, laying next to my monitor, it makes the screen flicker and the speaker on my work phone buzz. is this new spectrum of wireless technology they use not close to, if not the same band as cellular phones?

the only thing i would recommend to large companies that decide to subject their employees to this abuse is to put a disclaimer in your company’s handbook about the wireless technology your corp. uses. in 5 years it could bite you in the ass.

for now…..a wired network suits me just fine, i will sit back and watch the rats fry:)– by therizza

retard(12:11am est sat nov 15 2003)sounds like you need to put down the crack pipe rizza – by psh

translated for “the slow”(8:32pm est sat nov 15 2003)this article essentially says: “oooh, because of the wireless boom, our companies have sold a bunch of hardware, but unless we get more fcc bandwidth, people will just keep using that old hardware they bought. we can't have that – we've gotta make them throw that old stuff away and upgrade to 5ghz stuff. michael powell, save our tech firms! allocate more bandwidth.”

the difference between this and other cases of predatory companies getting their way because they bought off our government is that in this case, the outcome is a good thing.

if only the companies gave the fcc more reasons to make more of the spectrum public, like it should be. for one thing, they should kill antena-received television entirely. if they want television that's free to the public, launch a government-paid satelite that doesn't have any access restrictions, and then turn over the whole tv spectrum to the people. same with radio. let's get innovation going! – by zeus!

interesting(12:59am est sun nov 16 2003)i dont watch tv, its for weak minds. the few good movies i do watch per year come via cable, like every other good standard. wireless technology is suited for those that like to watch tv, the lazy. run the damn cable and forget about the government freeing up these frequencies, they will not do it anyway. and for free tv, are you still asleep cause i think your dreaming. the day public tv leaves the air waves is the day we pay for local channels.

i guess i just do not understand why someone would want to sacrafice a 100 mb/s connection for the ease of a wireless network. maybe its the crack pipe i cant put down.

p.s.- to hell with the fcc and the riaa – by therizza

rizza(9:32am est sun nov 16 2003)you have a good point there sir – i guess it is a choice between ease or speed and i kinda like the speed option there. :)plus it is cheaper to run the wire and you don't have to worry about interference or changing standards.you convinced me! – by john m

im confused(9:54pm est thu feb 16 2006)i think im on the wrong website, but i'll try anyways, maybe theres some nice people out there still. when i tried downloading a comp. game my computer went black then said 76.5 khz/120.ohz frequency outta range try other resolutions. for people like me that are'nt so computer savy – could somebody help me understand what that means?! – by mc